From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Sat Aug 12 2006 - 12:27:10 EDT
All the editions are out in new MEGA. The French is MEGA II/7. There are at least 3 places in UK where they can be consulted. BL, Marx Memorial Library, Sussex University Lib. Chris A On 10 Aug 2006, at 14:09, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > Dear Rakesh Bhandari, > > Thanks for your interesting query which I found in my Sussex mailbox - > that > is however only a convenience address, I am an independent scholar in > fact > and this is the address you should use in future. > > I am intrigued by the idea that people still do discuss these issues. > As > far as answering your question goes, I would probably stand by the > arguments > I made in 1974, with some qualification. I think it would be true to > say > that from the later 1970s until last year I had looked at Marx's > writings no > more than two or three times - I find Max Weber a far more interesting > analyst, of capitalism as well. > > However, last year I retranslated the Zasulich letters for Cambridge > UP and > I was shocked at what I read. I knew in the 1970s that Marx's analytic > capacities waned, the Ethnographic Notebooks make this clear, but the > Zasulich drafts just go round and around. Poorly structured, poorly > argued. > He refers to the French edition of Capital to conceal his change of > mind on > the universality of his analysis of capitalism, I have looked again at > the > material in the Shanin collection Late Marx but incline to the view > that > Marx refers to the French edition to effect this concealment, since, > so far > as I know, he does not revise the text in the same way for the second > German > edition. I am a bit hampered in all this since there is no French > edition > in any British library so far as I can tell (I have an online version > now > but it is the wrong edition, a reprint and not the original); the > second > edition is only in the British Library, not in Oxford or Cambridge; and > there is no copy of the newer Gesamtausgabe in Oxford, my nearest > source. I > have the Dietz Werke but that is useless, it is the wrong edition of > Capital > and the editors have modernised the text - I do have a facsimile of the > first edition and was surprised to see that in the Werke reprint of the > preface to the first edition all emphases have gone and it has been > reparagraphed. So that rather makes you think they would have done > other > things as well. > > So far as reading Capital goes, you need to use only the first and > second > German editions read against the (original) French edition. Anything > else > is a waste of time. The second German edition revises the structure > and > ordering of material (within chapters) quite heavily, drawing > attention to > the fact that the argument is not especially tight in the first place. > (This is the sort of thing you latch on to as a translator searching > for a > cited passage - the text keeps on looking as though it is about to > come out > with the formulation you are looking for, and then it veers away and > starts > again). I have not had a chance to look at how the Gesamtausgabe > deals with > all this editorially, but hope to get to London this month and will go > to > the BL and take a look. > > In the 1980s I read a paper which argued very convincingly that Marx > had > intended there to be two volumes to Capital and that the two further > volumes > that Engels generated ran together duplicate material from the > different > attempts Marx made to complete the project, summarised in his own > words some > original material, and even in some cases wrote bridging sections of > his > own. One can argue of course about Engels' understanding, but if we > are > arguing about Marx's Capital there is in fact only one volume, in the > three > versions I note above. > > Marx certainly had all sorts of ideas about extending his work - most > writers do - but the evidence, even from Grundrisse, is that he was > never > very good at organising his material in an effective way and so the one > volume he did complete is the best he could do with all his plans. > (Alfred > Marshall had a similar problem!) > > I'd be interested in your reaction to these comments, and look forward > to > hearing from you, > > Keith Tribe > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Philip Tribe [mailto:kt51@sussex.ac.uk] > Sent: 08 August 2006 19:00 > To: tess@dircon.co.uk > Subject: Fwd: Grossman on Capital > > ----- Forwarded message from Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@berkeley.edu> -- > --- > From: Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@berkeley.edu> > To: kt51@sussex.ac.uk > Subject: Grossman on Capital > Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:44:23 -0700 > > Dear Professor Tribe, > I participate on a private list serve (OPE-L) dedicated to the > discussion of > Marx's political economy. I recently mentioned your piece on Marx's > method > from 1974. Strong objections have been expressed to the idea that Marx > abandoned his six book plan; people are adamant that Capital is in > fact a torso > of a larger projected work. Enrique Dussel has even suggested that > Marx completed > only 1/16th of his project. I was wondering whether you would like to > discuss these issues again. This was the last message which I wrote. I > am > wondering whether I have understood you correctly: > > One question though is whether Marx said what he meant to say about > wage labour > within the constraints of the actual plan of his work. > So what was the plan of his work? What is the relation between the six > volume > and four volume plan? I think Tribe/Grossman are correct that the > latter > represents a break with the previous six volume plan. > > To see this we can't reduce Marx's debt to Quesnay to the > reproduction schema only. This is what Fred [Moseley] has done, I > think. > > The debt to Quesnay is present in the architectonic of of the three > volumes of Capital as a whole. > > The first volume studies the production of the net product; the > analysis of the net product depends on distinction between constant > and variable capital, and the second > volume focuses on the interdependence between the two productive > departments of > means of production and wage goods as realized in exchange; the third > volume then studies the process of reproduction as a whole, including > both the limits to that process of reproduction (FROP) and > the integration of the new elements-- the credit mechanism, the other > forms of capital (commercial > and banking) and landed property. > > Marx moves successfully from an abstracted study of the production of > the net product to a theory of the reproduction of capital as a > whole. The third volume is dynamic and concrete, and the > dis-simulating surface appearances of capitalist society (e.g. the > trinity formula) are indeed theoretically explained. > > > > Marx's Capital is thus a theoretical whole, not a torso. But to say > this is not to say that more need > not be said about wage labor or credit or landed property or the world > market. > > Marx did however complete the study of the very object his study > created--an "ideal-typical" capitalist mode of production. > > But what is the nature of this ideal type? Weberian or not? What do > we think of the Unonist interpretation? Or Leswak Nowak's? > > These are of course fundamental questions which I think the archive > will show have been understudied > on OPE-L. > > In many ways this is the fundamental question about Marx's > method--what is the relationship between > the six and four volume plans? > > Which one of Oakley's possibilities is correct? > > ----- End forwarded message ----- >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT